Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“It is the duty of the Court to reach the truth of the matter and such exercise may demand putting forward certain questions and suggestions which may be uncomfortable to some.”
“Each citizen of this country carries with him or her, one single domicile which is the ‘Domicile of India’. The concept of regional or provincial domicile is alien to the Indian legal system.”
Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision quashing the private complaint and concluding that the alleged offences under Sections 193, 199 and 200 of the IPC were such, on which the complaint could have only been filed by the Court following the route under Section 195 read with Section 340 of the CrPC.
“Although Section 127 of TPA permits an onerous gift but a gift which is conditioned upon perpetual rendering of services without any remuneration would amount to a “begar” or forced labour, even slavery and therefore it is not just wrong or illegal but even unconstitutional, being violative of fundamental rights of the donees.”
The 9-Judge Bench unanimously held that Article 31-C of the Constitution remains in force to the extent that it was upheld in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
“The prime object of FIR, from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about the alleged activity to enable them to take suitable steps to trace and book the guilty. FIR is an important document, though not a substantial piece of evidence, and may be put in evidence to support or contradict the evidence of its maker viz., the informant.”
Expressing its displeasure saying “Patience may be a virtue — but ours is nearing its end”, the Court listed the matter as priority for 19-11-2024.
The Supreme Court overturned the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, wherein his bail application was dismissed.
‘No reason to interfere with the well-considered findings.’ The High Court’s and Trial Court’s decision for convicting the man for offence under Section 376 of IPC was upheld.
The investigation against the accused was initiated as the main accused had named him but later it was discovered that it was a false accusation, as wife of the main accused had some disputes going on with accused person’s wife, hence, he was falsely implicated.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia is a second-generation legal professional who joined the Bar at Allahabad High Court and went on to become Judge at Supreme Court of India.
Supreme Court noted that this is not a case of pre-planned murder as the incident started with a fight between children for “mangoes” which unfortunately flared up when the adults of the families also got involved which ultimately led to the deceased, the father of one of the children, being killed.
Supreme Court said that the finding of the Trial Court on the ground to proceed against the accused is based on suppositions and suspicions, having no foundational support from the materials produced by the prosecution.
“The lack or absence of motive is inconsequential when direct evidence establishes the crime.”
“To make out an offence under cheating the intention to cheat or deceive should be right there from the beginning”.
Supreme Court acknowledged that in case of special law prescribing a limitation period, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would have no application.
Supreme Court clarified that Standing Orders cover wider activities of workmen and were workmen specific, yet, in view of Section 13B of 1946 Act, a specific notification can be made applying CCA Rules 1965 to that specific aspect, but a notification was necessary.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia is a second-generation legal professional who joined the Bar at High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and went on to become Judge at Supreme Court of India. His journey from his early schooling days to the present esteemed position is a testament to the power of knowledge, dedication, and the pursuit of justice.
Supreme Court observed that in cases where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitation, then continuation of such a ‘marriage' would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other.
The Revenue had submitted that the Assessing Officer is competent to consider all the material that is available on record, including that found during the search, and make an assessment of ‘total income’. While some of the High Courts agreed with the said proposition, some disagreed. The Supreme Court was, hence, called upon to resolve the conundrum.